Graeme Pollock vs Ricky Ponting

[DrWolverine]

Inspired from Zaheer vs Ponting

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Graeme

 

[ma1978]

I think the perception of Ponting on this board bs the real world is probably the widest of any cricketer

Akram second

 

[Gob]

I hope this is for batting only and not for test batting otherwise selecting a bloke who has 20 tests over another with, what, 160? Is insanity

 

[Coronis]

I hope this is for batting only and not for test batting otherwise selecting a bloke who has 20 tests over another with, what, 160? Is insanity

I tend to agree kind of.

Then again, what would you say about Pollock vs Jayawardene or Chanderpaul?

 

[ma1978]

I tend to agree kind of.

Then again, what would you say about Pollock vs Jayawardene or Chanderpaul?

once people are in the same tier of quality is where longevity and sample size matters

I think it’s hard to argue that pollock is in some tier above Ponting

 

[kyear2]

I think the perception of Ponting on this board bs the real world is probably the widest of any cricketer

Akram second

I don't get the Ponting slander on here, dude was a legitimate beast and was mentioned in the same breath at times with Sachin and Lara.

once people are in the same tier of quality is where longevity and sample size matters

I think it’s hard to argue that pollock is in some tier above Ponting

Yeah, they are very much either in the same tier or adjacent to each other.

 

[ma1978]

the Ponting slander is ridiculous. Look at the George Headley thread

 

[Bolo.]

once people are in the same tier of quality is where longevity and sample size matters

I think it’s hard to argue that pollock is in some tier above Ponting

As test bats, Ponting obilerates guys like Pollock and Headley to me if we are judging on test career including longevity.

If we ignore longevity, Ponting is much closer to the Chanders or Jayawardene league than he is to Pollock.

Coronis raises an interesting point. If we consider Ponting ahead, we probably should do for bats we don't consider as good as him.

 

[kyear2]

As test bats, Ponting obilerates guys like Pollock and Headley to me if we are judging on test career including longevity.

If we ignore longevity, Ponting is much closer to the Chanders or Jayawardene league than he is to Pollock.

Coronis raises an interesting point. If we consider Ponting ahead, we probably should do for bats we don't consider as good as him.

Longevity has become the most overrating factor in evaluating cricketers.

It's what causes such ridiculous comparisons as Anderson vs the likes of Bumrah or Holding, and the overrating of many others.

Quality over quantity. I want to see the players you performed well against and in what conditions, what adversarial situations did you over come, how you were rated by your peers, what skill set and intangibles set you apart, and performances in the big moments.

 

[Bolo.]

Longevity has become the most overrating factor in evaluating cricketers.

It's what causes such ridiculous comparisons as Anderson vs the likes of Bumrah or Holding, and the overrating of many others.

Quality over quantity. I want to see the players you performed well against and in what conditions, what adversarial situations did you over come, how you were rated by your peers, what skill set and intangibles set you apart, and performances in the big moments.

Is Procter a better bowler than Marshall, or do you want more longevity?

 

[kyear2]

Is Procter a better bowler than Marshall, or do you want more longevity?

The statement I made also illustrated why Marshall is better.

Procter primarily proved himself in England and South Africa, the most conducive conditions for fast bowlers.

Also why I rate batting performances for WSC higher than bowling ones.

It's what you overcome and the conditions you're successful in that means more than just longevity.

 

[Coronis]

As test bats, Ponting obilerates guys like Pollock and Headley to me if we are judging on test career including longevity.

If we ignore longevity, Ponting is much closer to the Chanders or Jayawardene league than he is to Pollock.

Coronis raises an interesting point. If we consider Ponting ahead, we probably should do for bats we don't consider as good as him.

I want to make a note here, I do consider Ponting ahead myself, I was just illustrating a point of specifically 160 tests being used as an argument.

 

[ma1978]

I want to make a note here, I do consider Ponting ahead myself, I was just illustrating a point of specifically 160 tests being used as an argument.

it’s not 160 tests in its enough, it’s the overall body of work that emerges after 160 tests. Ponting wasn’t a flash in the pan HTB that many make out here. He was the dominant bat for a very long time.

 

[Bolo.]

The statement I made also illustrated why Marshall is better.

Procter primarily proved himself in England and South Africa, the most conducive conditions for fast bowlers.

Also why I rate batting performances for WSC higher than bowling ones.

It's what you overcome and the conditions you're successful in that means more than just longevity.

Procter has a way better test record than Marshall. He just doesn't have the games. Similar boat to Ponting vs Pollock, just more extreme.

I commented on tests specifically. Pollock crushes Ponting in FC.

 

[Coronis]

Pollock crushes Ponting in FC.

Big boy with a big bat.

 

[peterhrt]

Cricketers cannot escape their own time any more than anyone else. Except in a fantasy dream world.

A cricketer's standing rests on impact in his own day - according to contemporary sources. He cannot sensibly be penalised for not playing in an era that did not exist at the time.

Military historians don't downgrade Napoleon the general for not having faced tanks or drones.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Graeme Pollock was a genius , he would have been just as great in ODI cricket too, he was the first player to score a 200+ score in List A cricket.

I think Graeme is the only player who played cricket in the 20th century to average over 50 in Tests , FC and List A.

 

[ma1978]

Cricketers cannot escape their own time any more than anyone else. Except in a fantasy dream world.

A cricketer's standing rests on impact in his own day - according to contemporary sources. He cannot sensibly be penalised for not playing in an era that did not exist at the time.

Military historians don't downgrade Napoleon the general for not having faced tanks or drones.

I don’t disagree but the point is Ponting is undeniably the greatest for a 8-9 year period and people seem to deny that. You don’t downgrade a modern general for having the tools they have either